|
< Previous Page | Next Page > Chapter 2b: Reason, Sensuality and Allegory in The Assembly of GodsThe connection between reason, sensuality and allegory is the central theme of The Assembly of Gods. Reason and Sensuality as characters represent the reasonable and sensitive portions of the soul in a general way, but the real focus of the poem is on the way that reason and sensuality work together in the interpretation of allegory. The poem continually reminds the reader that with allegory you must employ reason and look beyond the surface, past the “immediate meaning” (Van Dyke 203) to find a more lasting significance, and it offers itself as an opportunity to practice. The collection of allegorical elements that make up the topography of the poem provides an attractive, often brightly painted husk which can be distracting, but the poem consistently instructs its readers to exercise their reason and look beyond the outer shell. The instructions come in the explicit statements that explain the process and in the inconsistencies that force readers to engage their reason to bring unity to the images on the surface of the poem. Throughout the poem there are direct statements about the nature of allegory and how it should be understood. The poem speaks clearly about the role of reason and the senses in interpreting allegory, particularly in the third section of the poem. Doctrine’s first words to the narrator when he meets her are,
Proper understanding will require that reason work together with the vision that was shown to the dreamer by Morpheus. The choice of the word “sensybly” is appropriate here because it evokes the idea of both the senses and reason.
Reason’s ability to see through the disguise of Resydyuacion saves the field from further trouble. If the allegory were simply concerned with representing the way that forces work in the soul, Perseverance might be a better character to control Resydyuacion, but here the focus is on the conflict between Reason and Sensuality, thus it is Reason who sees through the disguise On the other hand, the problems that arise when reason is not applied to allegories is illustrated by Doctrine in her discussion of how the ancient Gods came into being. She explains that, “. . . poetys feynyd many a fable/ To dyscrete reson ryght acceptable” (1686-87) to explain certain natural phenomena or to give credit to people who made great strides in certain areas. But,
This is a standard medieval explanation of how the ancient gods came into being, but here it also serves to illustrate how allegory should be understood and some problems that can ensue if the process does not work properly. The fables that the poets conceived, “to the entent that they should sownde/ To the eares of hem the more plesauntly/ That theym shuld reede or here” (1688-90), could have taught and pleased the people, if they had applied “dyscrete reson,” but instead the people were deceived because they did not look beyond the surface and refused to see the fables as figures. The image of the mirror deceiving “a mannys look” is another nice touch because it connects the confusion of the figure with the deceiving of the senses in a direct way and ties this example to the idea that allegory is misunderstood when reason and the senses do not work together properly. The statement that some never forsook the error acts as a warning to the dreamer and the reader not to make the same mistake with the allegories presented to them. There are many statements in The Assembly of Gods which make it clear that allegorical meanings are of greater value than literal meanings. After the first two episodes of the vision, Morpheus asks the dreamer, “Hast thow sene ynowgh, or wyll thow se more?" To which the dreamer responds,
The narrator recognizes that the real meaning of the vision is not found simply in what he has seen and he desires to understand the deeper meaning. The dreamer can identify the characters depicted on the walls of the arbor of Doctrine, but Doctrine asks him, “What thynkest thow hast thow nat thentent/ Yet of these foure wallys---what they represent?” (1903-4). The dreamer is eager to know “the verray sentence" (2002) of the allegories that are presented to him and as he closes the poem, he encourages the reader to, “Take therof the best & let the worst be—/ Try out the corne clene from the chaff/ And then may ye say ye have a sure staff” (2071-72). Statements like these make it clear that in this poem, as in other medieval works, the deeper meanings are of greater importance than those found on the surface of the allegory. These direct discussions of the importance of the inner meaning and the need to search for it are examples that exist on the surface of the poem. They are the more explicit statements which prepare the reader to understand the truths as they are “taught under the guise of metaphor” (Aquinas in Minnis and Scott 240). They instruct and prepare the reader to apply the process to his or her reading of The Assembly of Gods. The fact that the poem is an allegory in form and content, the references to how allegory should be understood and the emphasis on the need to get beyond the outer layer all directly invite the reader to look for a deeper meaning in this poem. Beyond the veil of the poem’s surface, the need to bring reason and sensuality into accord to comprehend higher things remains the central theme. One example comes in the form of the guides that the poet provides for the dreamer. The dreamer’s guides are interesting characters, but they are also important allegorical figures that illustrate the way that reason and sensuality should work together in the interpreting of allegory. Triggs notes that, “These dreamers almost invariably have guides” and lists a few examples (Assembly 64). His statements seem intended to undercut the significance of the character simply because it is a conventional element. It is true that dream poems nearly always include a guide, but the choice of a guide usually contributes to the point the author is trying to make. Triggs mentions Morpheus as a guide, but says nothing of the role of Doctrine. Both these characters provide guidance for the dreamer and together they symbolize the accord of sensuality and reason. Morpheus represents the dreamer’s senses throughout the poem. He leads the dreamer through the vision and directs his attention to various images in the dream. His role is always to lead the dreamer’s vision and never to explain. He points things out to the dreamer, and occasionally rebukes him for looking too long, but does not offer any interpretation of the elements of the dream.*See for example 1471-72, 1620-21, 1870-71,1875-76, 1885-87. On one occasion the dreamer sees that with the help of Reason and Sadness, “the grounde of the felde gan wex hoore & whyte.” He is surprised until he, ”was enformyd & taught hit to know,/ But where Vertew occupyeth must nedys well grow” (1369, 1371-72). His guide at this point is Morpheus, but the dreamer does not ask Morpheus for an explanation, and the poem carefully remains unspecific about who gives the information and does the teaching. The poet reveals Morpheus’ connection to the sensual aspect of the soul in a variety of ways. After the battle, Virtue gives Morpheus the keys to the posterns of the five highways that lead to Microcosm. The highways represent the senses and, as Doctrine explains, the posterns represent the inward wits (1852). Morpheus leads the dreamer on a journey to discover the answer to his question, he warns Virtue of the coming battle and he seems to be on good terms with Doctrine and her friends. But, in the opening stanzas, the poet decides to go with Morpheus because, “hit ys oft seyde by hem that yet lyues/ He must nedys go that the deuell dryues” (20-21). As Triggs notes, the phrase is proverbial (64), but the narrator seems to have some question. So he asks Morpheus his name and then asks, “where do ye dwell,/ In heuen or in erthe outher elles in hell" (32-33)? To which Morpheus responds, “Nay, myñ abydyng most comonly/ Ys in a lytyll corner callyd Fantasy" (34-35). Morpheus, like Sensuality, is directly allied with neither heaven nor hell. Although Morpheus is helpful to the dreamer, the poem seems to suggest that his influence, like that of sensuality, could lead to trouble. As Morpheus leads the narrator around, he is said to take the dreamer “by the sleue” (14, 2033). This phrase is used in one other place in the poem, as Doctrine begins her explanation of the first episode of the dream. She says,
She then goes into her explanation of how the ancients were deceived because they could not get past the fables of the poets. Morpheus represents the sensual and provides the dreamer with the sensual information that makes up the vision. The information he provides is necessary and valuable, and is, “to dyscrete reson ryght acceptable” (1687), but without the help of reason the dreamer is left wondering what it all means (1473-76) and could potentially be lead to misunderstanding and error. Doctrine represents the reasonable aspect of the soul. She sits, richly adorned, in her arbor, surrounded by Scripture, Gloss, Moralization and other characters who represent wisdom, specifically spiritual wisdom. A dove, representing the holy spirit, hovers over her head and a ray of light beams directly from its mouth to her head. Doctrine, like reason, is in the image of God and is capable of understanding the higher things. After describing some of the paintings on the wall the narrator says, “but forthe to shewe yow the substaunce/ Of thys matyr, in the myddes of that herbere,/ Sate Doctryne” (1601-3). Doctrine can show the significance of all the things the dreamer has seen and she proposes to apply his natural reason to provide her interpretation. Morpheus and Doctrine, the only two characters who directly address the dreamer, represent sensuality and reason as they work together in the vision. Morpheus shows the dream and Doctrine offers an interpretation of its meaning that goes beyond what the dreamer could understand from the information his senses received. The narrator’s final understanding of the vision may be different than the reader’s, but the process he goes through is the same. In addition to direct statements and allegorical guides, the poem uses the theme of the accord of reason and sensuality to invite its readers “inward and upward” (Teskey 4) to experience the accord themselves. The poem claims at its outset to be interested in the accord of reason and sensuality, but on the narrative level this theme plays only a liminal role. The narrator poses his question about the accord in the opening stanza, but the various stories and characters which make up the bulk of the poem seem to have little to do with it. Even the second episode which includes Reason and Sensuality as characters does not directly address their accord. If there is no meaning beyond what is available on the surface of the poem, the poem becomes what many critics have long considered it, a loosely connected montage of poorly developed, stock allegorical forms.*Even scholars like Triggs and Pamela Gradon, who recognize that the relationship between reason and sensuality is the central theme of the poem, have focused their attention on the various images on the surface of the poem (Assembly xi, Gradon 369). This emphasis of a theme that is not developed and the feeble connection between the various elements is one way that the poem becomes “an incoherent narrative . . . that makes us interpret throughout” (Teskey 5). Doctrine’s implication that the accord between reason and sensuality was somehow explained in the vision (see above Assembly 1930-32) makes it clear that there is a meaning for the poem that connects the individual parts to the theme of the accord of reason and sensuality and might resolve the incoherence of the narrative. Yet throughout her interpretation of the vision, she prefaces her explications with, “Sygnyfyed ys nomore be that matere/ But . . .” (1628-29), or “. . . ys no more to sey/ But . . .” (1856-57), or “. . . Betokeneth nomore but . . .” (1837) and similar phrases by which she limits possible meanings of the vision. Her claim is that to understand the first two episodes of the poem is “to vndyrstond nomore but” (1844) her interpretation, and yet her interpretation of those episodes says nothing of the accord of reason and sensuality which she claims could be understood from the vision. Morover, her explanations, particularly of the second episode, are not particularly insightful. For example:
She admits that the idea of a microcosm is applied to man “nyght and day,” but apparently this particular instance of the allegory does not offer any new insight. The field is simply what the name says it is, “man,” “the lesse worlde” (1829-30). Doctrine’s shallow explanations of the allegories may be largely responsible for the critical interpretation of the poem as a tedious and shallow collection of traditional allegories. But her claim that those explanations are all that there is to understanding the vision contradicts her suggestion that poet should have understood the accord of reason and sensuality from the earlier parts of the vision. This contradiction adds to the incoherence of the poem and bids the reader to look further into the poem for answers and for the accord of reason and sensuality. The explanation of the accord of reason and sensuality that Doctrine gives in the third section of the poem comes in the form of a short drama which resolves the question for the dreamer, if not for the reader. It also provides important clues to interpreting the earlier portions of the dream. When the poet asks Doctrine to determine his doubt regarding the accord of reason and sensuality she puts on the play which resolves his question. In the drama, Death brings Reason and Sensuality together in an unambiguous and literal way. The “sentence” is clearly spelled out by Reason and reiterated by Doctrine: both Reason and Sensuality counsel all people to fear Death; in this way, and this way only, reason and sensuality accord. The play also dramatizes the appropriate relationship between reason and sensuality. Reason is dominant as he states the position that he and Sensuality share and then clarifies and explains it at Doctrine’s request. This simple and straightforward, if shallow, explanation of the accord of reason and sensuality in the fear of death is Doctrine’s answer to the dreamer’s question. She directs and interprets the drama at the request of the dreamer. This resolution of the conflict between reason and sensuality in death then, is Doctrine’s understanding of the issue and this is what she expected the dreamer to have found in the preceding portions of the dream. This explanation from Doctrine is another explicit statement on the literal level of the poem that opens a hole in the guise of metaphor. A look back at the earlier parts of the poem with this interpretation in mind reveals the way that the accord of reason and sensuality in death runs throughout the dream. The dream portion of The Assembly of Gods is organized into three distinct, but similar sections. Each takes place in a different location and has a different cast of characters, but each is roughly one hundred stanzas long, and is organized around a conflict which is finally resolved with the coming of Death. Reason and sensuality, in some form, also play an important role in each of the three sections and in the conflicts that are resolved by Death. The drama that takes place at the end of the third episode is the most literal example of the way that Death brings a resolution to a conflict, but it follows a pattern that is present in the earlier sections as well. The second episode of the poem focuses on the battle between Virtue and Vice, and in her brief explication of this episode Doctrine simply points out the standard elements of a medieval psychomachia. She does not mention the role of Sensuality or Death at all and only mentions Reason to say that he, with the help of Sadness kept Resydyuacion out of the field. But Reason, Sensuality and Death all play important roles in this section of the play. Reason and Sensuality act as counselors to Freewill. Sensuality’s weeds turn the battle in Vice’s favor. After that battle is over, Reason and Sensuality remain in the field and Reason is given lordship and instructed to instructed to, “Kepe [Sensuality] short” (1307). Sensuality continues to oppose Reason, though without much success as Reason keeps Sensuality under control until Death brings this section of the poem to a close by taking possession of the field. It may be less clear here than in the play in the third episode, but Death brings about the final resolution of the conflict between Reason and Sensuality. The interaction of the three seems to suggest that the conflict between Reason and Sensuality is resolved in Death because Death brings an end to sensual influences, “. . . the fyue hygh weyes were muryd opon hy,/ That fro thensforward nooñ entre shuld therby./ The posternes also were without lette,/ Bothe inward & outward, fyn fast shette” (1460-63), but there is also some reference to the fear of death in this section. When certain members of Vice’s host decide to repent and change their ways Conscience counsels them to, “goo lyght,/ E than olde Attropos of hem had a syght./ For yef he so theym tooke lost they were for euer” (1201-3). This connection to the fear of death is tenuous, but the poet gives it extra significance in a way that will require a brief detour to explain. There are many interesting connecting details between the three sections of the poem which deserve more attention. Most are beyond the scope of this paper, but one that is significant here is the fact that at the same point in each of the three episodes, at the climax of the action and in almost the same relative stanzas the narrator pauses to go back for important information. In the first episode it comes just as Othea calls for the gods to entreat Neptune to give up his contention with Aeolus so that they can be sure of Aeolus’ help in the battle against their common foe, Virtue. In stanza seventy-six, before the narrator describes the resolution of that conflict, he says he needs to go back and explain how Aeolus came to be in Pluto’s prison. It turns out that as Aeolus was flying around one day he flew into some cracks in the earth that had been caused by a drought, but, “Sodeynly by weet constreynyd by duresse/ Was the ground to close hys superfyciall face/ So strayte that to scape Eolus had no space” (537-39) and he was taken in chains to Pluto and put on trial. Aeolus is buried in the ground and goes to the realm of the dead to be judged. In the second episode the look back comes just after Prescience and Predestination have come with judgement when the poet remembers that he had forgotten “to haue tolde [us] how many of Vyce hys oost/ Gan to seek Peese, and darkyd downe full low” as they looked for ways to repent (Stanza 171, 1192-93). It is during this flashback that we learn of Conscience’s counsel that they “goo lyght” so they are not caught by Death in their current state. Faith commands the repentant characters, “make good face,/ And let no man know of you heuynes" (1214-15). Again the image is of Death and the judgement that follows. In the third section, as Doctrine concludes her instruction with a moral about how to live so that, “gracious Predestinacion/ [will] Bryng the to glory at thy last ende" (275, 1921-22), the poet remembers the question about reason and sensuality that began the vision and asks Doctrine for an answer. The drama is her answer, so Death appears and the narrator hides behind Morpheus, ”Dredyng full soore lest he with hys dart,/ Thorow Doctrynes wordes, any entresse/ In me wolde haue had or claymed any part—/ Whyche shuld haue causyd me gret heuynesse“ (1940-43). Now to return to the discussion of the way that in each of the three episodes of the poem Death brings about the resolution of a conflict. Reason and Sensuality do not appear in the first episode of the poem, but there is a discord, and on one level sensuality is responsible. Doctrine’s explanation of the battle between Virtue and Vice is little more than a paraphrase of the action that the poet witnessed, but she shows her ability to see through the false figures of the pagan gods by drawing moral lessons from the allegory of the trial and the banquet and she points out the errors that brought the gods into being. In her explication of the first episode she gives important clues to help reveal the role of reason and sensuality in this portion of the vision. Doctrine explains that,
The word lewdness and others that are used in the description of Aeolus might connect him with sensuality, but the phrases “at hys large,” and “wantons, by her wyldenesse” tie Aeolus directly to the character Sensuality as he appears in the second episode. When Freewill tells Virtue that it was Sensuality that caused him to take the side of Vice Reason says, “. . . I know well that felawe./ Wylde he ys & wanton” (1229-30). When Sadness brings Sensuality in, Virtue asks, “Why art thow so wantoun & wylde, . . . / Er thow go at large thow shalt be made more tame” (1238-39). Both Aeolus and Sensuality are brought as prisoners. Diana and Neptune request that Aeolus not be set at his liberty again lest he cause more trouble (63, 96) just as Sensuality was, “ay kept vndyr foote,/ That to Resydyuacion myght he doo no boote” (1350-51). The conflict in the first episode is between Aeolus, who embodies sensuality, and Diana and Neptune. Diana and Neptune do not embody Reason, but Doctrine connects them to reason when she explains that, . . . as for Diana & Neptunus compleynt, The complaint of Diana and Neptune shows the foolishness of ancient personifications and provides another example of the way that those who lack reason will be fooled by sensual influences, but it also makes a connection between reason and these characters who are at odds with Aeolus. None of the gods prefigures reason as clearly as Aeolus does sensuality, though Doctrine’s description of, “The gret Apollo, with hys sad chere,” as the embodiment of wisdom (1655) and the combination of wisdom and sadness used to describe Jupiter (269-70) recall the combination of Reason and Sadness that kept Sensuality in check after the battle in episode two. As Triggs notes, “The pagan deities are all ranged on the side of the Vices of Christendom,” (Assembly lviii) which might make it inappropriate for any of them to represent reason completely. Apollo most closely fills the role that reason plays in the other parts of the poem. He rules the other gods and keeps the problems caused by Aeolus in check. Aeolus’ wanton wildness is in opposition to the order and peace that the gods desire. Neptune and Diana complain that Aeolus has caused things to get “out of mesure” (84, 102), and it is Apollo who brings back order as he arranges the gods at his table. As in the other sections of the poem, Death, in a sense the fear of Death, brings about the final resolution of this conflict. The gods quickly resolve their differences in fear that if they do not unify their efforts Virtue may escape and Death will leave their service. With each successive episode the relationship between reason, sensuality and death becomes clearer. The idea that the accord of reason and sensuality is found in death emerges from the depths of the poem until it is brought onto the surface, spelled out by Reason and rephrased by Doctrine in the final episode. But as the statement of the idea becomes clearer, it loses depth and significance. In various ways, the poem says that reason and sensuality come together in death, but the significance of that idea must go beyond the explanation given by Doctrine. Doctrine claims that the, “concordaunce nomore sygnyfyeth/ To pleyne vndyrstandyng, but in euery mane/ Bothe Sensualyte & Reson applyeth/ Rather Dethe to fle then with hit to be tane” (2010-13), however she was similarly insistent that the earlier portions of the poem had no significance beyond what she explained, and yet those episodes are filled with connections between Reason, Sensuality and Death that her explanations do not address. Her value, if not credibility, as a exegete is questionable at best and she undercuts it further when she finishes her explanation of the vision and says,
Doctrine invites the narrator to look with “good discresyoñ” and check what she has said, to see if she was right. In the case of the ancients, they were presented with fables which they took literally because of a lack of “dyscrete reson” (1687). Here the dreamer is presented with an interpretation and invited to check it against what he can learn through “good discresyoñ.” The dreamer’s first description of his own state following the invitation to see if Doctrine is right is, “And all that tyme stood I in a wyre/ Whyche way furst myñ hert wold yeue more/ To looke; in a stody stood I therfore” (1872-74). He stands “in a wyre,” or in doubt, specifically about which wall to look at first, but, in the context, the statement subtly underscores the questions about the reliability of Doctrine’s interpretation. When the dreamer first meets her, Doctrine says she will, “apply thy naturall resoñ/ Vnto my wordys” (1622-23 emphasis added). To understand the vision properly the dreamer’s reason must be applied not just to what he has seen, but to the words of Doctrine. Doctrine’s statements are not the final meaning of the dream, in fact the episode with Doctrine is part of the dream, part of the information given through the inward senses which must be coupled with reason if the deeper sense of the vision is to be understood. In Suzanne Lindgren Wofford’s analysis of The Faerie Queene she suggests that, “the characters do not know they are in an allegory, and cannot and do not ‘read’ the signs of their world as figurative pointers to another arena of understanding.” She argues, however, that the characters do have “a consistent understanding of the action according to the chivalric idiom” which informs their actions (220). Similarly, I would suggest that Doctrine’s statements reveal that she does not comprehend or cannot reveal the deeper “arena of understanding” in The Assembly of Gods, but rather acts in accordance with the rules that govern the allegorical idiom. Her interpretations are comprised of traditional allegorical materials and methods which barely reach below the statements in the narratives themselves. She symbolizes the rational portion of the soul and gives directions for finding deeper meaning, but as a character in the vision, anything she says is still on the surface of the allegory. It might be argued that her ability to interpret is better in the case of the earlier parts of the narrative–the parts farthest from herself. She is able to see through the allegorical characters of the gods and draw a moral from individual portions of the narrative. Her interpretations lack unity, are not particularly profound and do not directly connect the first episode of the poem with the accord of reason and sensuality, but they establish her role and provide clues for more profound exegesis. In the case of the second episode her interpretations constitute little more than a rephrasing of the names of some individual characters. And in the case of the drama of which she is a part, she simply restates Reason’s dialogue. In none of these cases does she get below the most superficial secondary meaning of the narrative, and her interpretations provide no unifying element for the poem. Doctrine is a character on the surface of the narrative and her appearance and speech are part of the sensual portion of the poem which, like all allegory, only becomes valuable when it is combined with reason which is outside the narrative to lift us “beyond the impression the thing itself makes upon the senses” (Augustine 34). Some of her statements and the clues that she gives might indicate that she is aware of another level to the allegory, at least in the first episode, but she cannot make a meaningful interpretation explicit without bringing it to the surface of the poem. The reader must apply his or her own reason to the information that comes from the immediate meaning of the poem, including Doctrine’s interpretations. This accord of reason and sensuality must take place in the reader, because for Doctrine or the narrator to explain the theme explicitly would bring it to the surface of the poem, place it in the realm of sensuality and undercut the role of reason and the message of the poem. As a result, the poem draws the reader into the process of bringing reason and sensuality into accord and teaches the central theme of the poem: proper understanding of allegory requires that reason and sensuality work together. Throughout The Assembly of Gods the idea that the proper understanding of allegory requires reason and sensuality to work together continually surfaces as the central theme. The poem provides instructions for allegorical interpretation and examples of proper and improper use of allegory. These examples and instructions provide the information necessary to interpret the poem itself which is made necessary by Doctrine’s inability or unwillingness to provide an interpretation that penetrates below the surface of the poem. As a result the poem explains the accord of reason and sensuality, illustrates the need for it and provides the reader with an opportunity to employ reason as, “the sharper subtlety of the allegory [exercises] the understanding nearing perfection” (Alan of Lille, in Robertson 60). The question regarding the accord of reason and sensuality is the key to the poem’s invitation to look beyond the narrative level of the poem. The search for a satisfying answer to this question leads the reader to combine reason and sensuality in an attempt to find a higher truth contained in the poem and as a result the reader not only learns, but experiences the answer to the question. < Previous Page | Next Page > |
ContentsChapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3: Literary, Visual and Dramatic Allegories Chapter 4: Death and the accord of Reason and Sensuality Appendix 1 Appendix 2: Critical response to The Assembly of Gods |
Copyright © 2010 ThirstyBob. All Rights Reserved. |
|